And I specifically asked about this hypothetically when I first got here. I asked “What failsafes are in place to make sure Lemmy doesn’t fall into the trap of powermods? As it scales bigger, so to will the power of bigger communities mods.”
And the answer I got was “Because if you don’t like one community, you can create your own!”
Three things…
What would ensure that this new community doesn’t ALSO have power hungry mods?
Lets say I create my own community. Why would the users of the popular community migrate to my version, just because I made it? Wouldn’t it be MORE likely that the duplicate communities have little to no users, and the abusive mod stays in power?
Creating a new community does nothing to failsafe against power hungry mods of the old community. They’re still in power in this scenario.
I suggested a poll voting system where every month there is an admin poll which asks the users to vote if the mod should stay in power. Where an active vote of yes counts as 2 votes for yes. An active vote for no counts as 1 vote for no. A non-vote counts for one quarter vote for yes.
Then, you create a community where you can make a post, and enter a community, and call out individual or multiple mods. These posts become pinned as one combined post in the community it pertains to, detailing what the mod did, and what the situation was. Screenshots can be used.
And also a total rehaul of the modlog. It should show which mod did the action, which communities it affected, and what the content was that spawned the action.
That way, the mods are able to see a post has been brought against them, and everyone can see what the mod did. The mod can then defend their actions.
This way, if some guy comes in, and says “A mod banned me, and I don’t like it!” The mod can then reply with a screenshot of the banned member posting nazi propaganda, and users will say “Oh, clearly the nazi was right to be banned.”
But you have other times where a mod does things, and it wasn’t justified, it gets called out, and now members can overwhelmingly vote against that mod.
And yes, the system is intentionally set up so that its skewed to keep mods in power. Because if a situation truely angers people, they’ll actively vote. If they don’t vote, in general they’re not too upset.
The only thing I need input is how to scale this for smaller communities which don’t have many subscribers.
But alas, my input was met with “No, just make another community!”
Bullshit isn’t it? It’s the only problem I have with lemmy. There are clearly some power tripping censoring mods.
And I specifically asked about this hypothetically when I first got here. I asked “What failsafes are in place to make sure Lemmy doesn’t fall into the trap of powermods? As it scales bigger, so to will the power of bigger communities mods.”
And the answer I got was “Because if you don’t like one community, you can create your own!”
Three things…
What would ensure that this new community doesn’t ALSO have power hungry mods?
Lets say I create my own community. Why would the users of the popular community migrate to my version, just because I made it? Wouldn’t it be MORE likely that the duplicate communities have little to no users, and the abusive mod stays in power?
Creating a new community does nothing to failsafe against power hungry mods of the old community. They’re still in power in this scenario.
I suggested a poll voting system where every month there is an admin poll which asks the users to vote if the mod should stay in power. Where an active vote of yes counts as 2 votes for yes. An active vote for no counts as 1 vote for no. A non-vote counts for one quarter vote for yes.
Then, you create a community where you can make a post, and enter a community, and call out individual or multiple mods. These posts become pinned as one combined post in the community it pertains to, detailing what the mod did, and what the situation was. Screenshots can be used.
And also a total rehaul of the modlog. It should show which mod did the action, which communities it affected, and what the content was that spawned the action.
That way, the mods are able to see a post has been brought against them, and everyone can see what the mod did. The mod can then defend their actions.
This way, if some guy comes in, and says “A mod banned me, and I don’t like it!” The mod can then reply with a screenshot of the banned member posting nazi propaganda, and users will say “Oh, clearly the nazi was right to be banned.”
But you have other times where a mod does things, and it wasn’t justified, it gets called out, and now members can overwhelmingly vote against that mod.
And yes, the system is intentionally set up so that its skewed to keep mods in power. Because if a situation truely angers people, they’ll actively vote. If they don’t vote, in general they’re not too upset.
The only thing I need input is how to scale this for smaller communities which don’t have many subscribers.
But alas, my input was met with “No, just make another community!”